Home Climate Transport SmartFish Personal Jet

SmartFish Personal Jet

E-mail Print

The SmartFish.

From the people that designed the world’s first hydrogen fuel cell jet-wing unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the Hyfish, comes their futuristic SmartFish small personal jet.

SmartFish prototype specifications are a cruise speed of Mach 0.85 (561mph/903kph at 35,000ft/10,670m), a 10000km (6,200 miles) range, low fuel consumption, and low CO2 emissions. A Williams FJ-33-19 turbofan with 1900lbs (864kgs) of thrust powers the Smartfish and fueled from two integral wing tanks holding 625liters (165 US gallons).

The SmartFish is only 6.9m (22ft 8”) long, with a 5.4m (17ft 9”) wingspan and an empty (dry) weight of 500kg (1,102lbs), 400kgs (882lbs) of fuel and 300kg (661lbs) of pilot, passenger, and luggage.

The blended wing and body mean a large internal volume for fuel and a roomy cabin, as well as high lift to drag ratios. Fewer mechanical parts to actuate fewer aerodynamic control surfaces mean higher reliability. The design is backed-up by some high tech Swiss and German research and development companies.

Based on some high performance blended wing-to-body aerodynamic shapes, tested out numerically with computational fluid dynamics models, then in wind-tunnels and with radio-controlled scale models, the SmartFish guys are now looking for partners to develop UAVs, high performance sports planes, business jets and even spacecraft to re-enter the earth’s atmosphere.

It really is a cool looking flying machine, and if it achieves its expected performance of flying 10,000kms using 625litres of aviation gasoline with a 10% reserve, then it gets better mileage than our Toyota Yaris (17.8kms/liter versus 16kms/liter).

Visit: http://www.smartfish.ch/

Via Dvice

 

Comments  

 
# skyguy 2010-02-04 01:49
It may be new math, but if I add up 400kgs (882lbs) of fuel and 300kg (661lbs) of pilot, passenger, and luggage, I get 1543 lbs of aircraft, not 1,102 lbs. This article is misleading or misled.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# Bob 2010-02-04 01:58
1102 is the dry weight or empty weight. Add other lbs for gross weight..
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# Tim 2010-02-04 05:13
The numbers are right - check out http://www.smartfish.ch/index.cfm/fuseaction/show/path/1-40.htm

As Bob says - the 1102lbs is without fuel, pilot, passenger and luggage. Max take off weight is 1,200kgs (2,645lbs).
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# E-C-Z 2010-02-04 18:18
Haha, I lol'd

These guys need a booth at Osh Kosh right beside JetPack Man and NASA Personal Tiltrotor
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# TEXinDFW 2010-02-04 19:54
Don't get too excited folks... it is just another "paper airplane" that will never do what its evangelists say. I may live in the Republic of Texas, but my logic is from the state that says "show me"....
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# jose cuervo 2010-02-04 20:37
The Smartfish developers must be trolling the sea for investors. Like the TerraFuga and Martin jetpack, they will probably come across the same school of Stupidfish with more money than brains.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# TEXinDFW 2010-02-04 22:20
Well-said, Jose.
I would guess that the queue of investors behind the Epic aircraft, and Grob jet, the Adam Aircraft disaster, and nearly-endless list of other failure debacles will be next in line to be skinned with this fishing-for-dollars P. R. campaign. True-believers are so easy to tap for cash. Just drop in a few lines baited with impressive CFD airflow drawings, and set the hook with promises of early delivery positions and unbelieveable (really... not believable) projected performance.
Makes for a cute r/c model, tho', if you look at the video hyperlink.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# VCTO 2010-02-06 09:46
Great green concept and great UAV implementation.
Don't listen to the negative vibes on this page. It often comes from people with just the energy to press ****ons on their TV remote control, with their behinds riveted on their living-room couches.
For more credibility though, do provide Cl-to-Cd ratios over speed envelope.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# Glenn Roberts 2010-02-06 19:43
It is great that there are people out there who continue to dream and ask, "Why not?" To those of you nay sayers, it is great that we have you to keep the dreamers grounded - but there is a time for you to just be quiet and behold the miracles the dreamers produce. This is a beautiful "why not" aircraft that is certainly within the realm of possibility and is a sign of things to come. I applaud their vision and hope for their great success!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# Bluemanx 2010-04-03 04:01
This reminds me of a long time ago project called "Prescott Pusher". I started that first innovative CAD/CAM designed aircraft project only to have the company go Bankrupt half way through my build. Lost lots of $$$. Be wary...very wary.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# Wilson 2010-04-04 06:55
For all the naysayers who bring up examples of concept failures and financial loss, look at all the successes. Those successes had an investment trail that was necessary and fruitful. Not every investor is a dimwit, As Teddy Roosevelt stated, it is the man with blood and sweat on his face that counts, not the cold and timid critics. Get in the arena sometime...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# TEXinDFW 2010-04-07 04:57
Hey, Wilson... I agree that "not every investor is a dimwit", but you, sir, are a nitwit. "Get in the arena...?" How about involvement with 3 different development programs, each better than the other (not relevant who they are). The 'Fish folks are currently about "1% of 1%" of the journey to a successful program. They have only a (virtual) paper airplane and one r/c model to show for it. Building a prototype might be worth about 2% of the battle to show that they can produce an actual flyable man-carrying unit; a prototype might help show that they could actually deliver on the not-believable range/speed promises, and could get them to about 5% of where they need to be. Getting into production might be worth another coupla' percent, but that still does not do it. The destination of fully-viable program is the time when the product is built with an awaiting and paid-up client (i.e.- no white-tails), and there is a proper, knowledgable, and easily accessed support network with readily available spares, None of these elements currently exist. The 'Fish folks are only a few light years away from that destination. So, my friend, YOU get in the arena before you offer another opinion.

To prove-out the concept, this project should have some flesh hung on its meager bones by initially producing it via state-of-the-art kits and show the world some tangible reality and performance... a la Lancair's beginning. Avoids all the up-front expense, time, and issues of type-certification and production-certification approvals. Just ask Adam Aircraft, Epic, Grob, and Eclipse how well new (and orphan) aircraft types fare in the real world; it's a tough and brutal Darwinian business. So, my position stands: It's a paper airplane that is likely always to remain so. But it's cute and fun to contemplate.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Thanks for the comment. By submitting your comments we reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change, modify, add, or delete your comments at any time without further notice. GreenMuze comments are meant to further discussion on the article topic. Disagreement is fine, but abusive or insulting comments will be deleted.

Security code
Refresh

twitter

GreenMuze Store